After the Election
 

Baring some very odd occurrence, GWB will be reelected come this November. I think even the most shrill anarchist reading this knows in their heart of heart this is true. This is not what I wish to talk about.

What I wish to talk about is the aftermath. How will this be explained by a left leaning press and stunned democrat supporters? They will first blame Kerry and his campaign, they will blame Kerry’s utter lack of personality, his constant and pathetic ‘athletic’ photo ops, his awkward smile, and his lack of spelling out the democrat vision. They will also blame the ‘big’ money, the swift boat vets, the Fox News Channel, and just how stupid people are.

What they won’t look at is why they ended up with Kerry as their torch bearer. As pathetic of a ticket Kerry-Edwards really is, after all a gigolo and a shyster will not inspire many people, its not their fault that they are pathetic. They are the only kind of democrat that can win a nomination now. The democratic party is no longer a party of principle but an amalgamation of left wing interest groups, trial lawyers, and union money. You can’t have a strong opinion on anything without offending and alienating one of the multitude of groups.

The fringe has come to define the party, and its really a shame. I don’t think FDR or JFK would be able to recognize what has become to the democrats. It started with LBJ and continues to this day. It makes our county weaker, not only in the imitate since, but in the long term. We need a rational left to ask when things have gone to far right. To make sure that one philosophy doesn’t dominate, to guard the guards when called for. The intellectual dishonesty, the win at all costs, the party before country the DNC leadership has taken over the last 20 years has all but eliminated the democrats a national political power and has relegated them to nothing but an obstruction to change. It has cost them the house of representatives in 94, the white house in 2000, and the senate in 2002.

I fully admit that I am a right leaning person, I don’t care for religion but I have faith in a system which will keep that from being an issue for me. I vote Republican in most cases but I do fear if this country becomes all right almost as much (almost) as if it became all left.

Unless the democrats stop trying to fool people, scare them, and incite them an all right America is a possibility. They need to learn to present their issues, show why they think their way is better, and to trust the American people to make a rational choice on who’s philosophy is better.

Both parties have become too self-interested. The only reason that they're in office now is because they ran a guy with a personality against a robot.

This year, the right-wing press will cheer a defeat of the Communists that threaten our way of life, and the left-wing press will do pretty much the same thing they've done for the past four years and whine about Bush. People don't want to admit that their side is anything but infallible, and they'll ignore the issue.

Both parties have become too self-interested. The only reason that they're in office now is because they ran a guy with a personality against a robot.

This year, the right-wing press will cheer a defeat of the Communists that threaten our way of life, and the left-wing press will do pretty much the same thing they've done for the past four years and whine about Bush. People don't want to admit that their side is anything but infallible, and they'll ignore the issue.

If the other candidate wins, I will be supportive of a Kerry Presidency, because he will be the Commander in Chief and the duly elected leader of our country. My allegiance and my patriotism is far stronger than my partisanship.

I'd go in a different direction - whoever wins will not gain my support because my partisanship is far weaker than my patriotism.

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers
How true this great American satirist words are in today’s political word. The democratic party in my opinion has always been a hodgepodge of differing political opinions with no centralizing movement. Sure they have had great leaders like FDR and Truman but they seem to be more the exception then the rule. I've asked myself why this is and I've come to the following conclusion. There are two sorts of people in this world. The first sort tends to see the world primarily in shades of black and white. These sort tend to lean “conservative” and, in America at least, be republicans. The second sort of people in this world tend to see things in varying shades of grey where there are very few absolutes. In America these people tend to be “liberals” and associate more closely with the democratic party. This theory (and like all theories its probably mostly crap) goes a long way to explaining why the republican party is much more organized and focused on a core set of issues whereas the democrats seem to be all over the map. If one is able to see the world in shades of black and white it is much easier to nail down your position and stick to it when under fire from opposition. If, on the other hand, you see the world mostly in differing shades of grey then it can be hard to find your position and even harder to defend it when under pressure to do so. The democrats do not lack direction for want of trying, they lack direction because they cannot find a path threw the fog of uncertainty and doubt that accompanies this world view. They (democrats) are often (and I believe rightly so) accused of waffling on key issues, and attacking their republican counterparts without offering constructive alternative solutions. If you accept my theory, then you can see why this is so. In their minds they cannot see the world in simple black and white, they know that the republican side is wrong (in their mind) but they cannot see the solution, and for this same reason they cannot come together and agree upon a party platform. This theory of mine is based upon my own personal experience and as such is bound to contain all flaws based upon my own personal bias. However, as I have grown older I have found myself shifting further to the ‘left’ and as part of this change I find myself no longer seeing the world in the absolute shades of black and white as I once did, but more in varying degrees of grey. There are of course some things that always remain absolutes, but I find now that they are few in number. I will end with a couple of other quotes I found from Will Rogers that I think are still applicable today.

"There ought to be one day-just one-when there is open season on senators."
"You can't say that civilization don't advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way."
"Elections are a good deal like marriages. There's no accounting for anyone's taste. Every time we see a bridegroom we wonder why she ever picked him, and it's the same with public officials."
And finally,
"On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does."

Never count your chickens before they hatch ustwo.

The polling would show a neck in neck race.

Bush's approval rating is below 50%

No standing US president has ever been re-elected who's approval rating is below 50%.

link...

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/A...hub=topstories

The jobs numbers are out tomorrow morning.

Given that first time jobless claims were up last week I predict a pretty miserable jobs report tomorrow.

Going into the final stretch, a sagging economy, in fact one that has been essentially struggling over the last 4 years, losing 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, and 1.8 million jobs overall, I dunno

Wow, either you have a LOT of confidence in Bush of you just have some HUGE balls to come out with that statement. And I have to agree with Kirk’s post. Bush never mentioned the domestic problems in his speech. His speech was an hour of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. If it weren’t for 9/11 occurring, Bush would be shit out of luck because he'd have absolutely nothing to run on. Think about it.

I’ll be looking for that jobs report tomorrow also.

i'm not as confident as ustwo is, but...

there will surely be a bunch of handwringing. no one will give Bush the credit that Kerry would have been given. many will think of any number of excuses for over half the country voted for a person they dislike personally.

IF he wins. :)

For anyone that believes in the Kerry/Edwards ticket, and the platform they are running on, this original post is incredibly inflammatory and insulting. The third and fourth paragraphs are outrageous. Is it possible to write something like that without knowing how much it insults other TFPers?

I frankly don't want to start talking about the irony of that last paragraph.

Do you appreciate that kind of diatribe about the current POTUS? Does it further the mission of TFP? Yet another example of why I'm mainly a lurker now. Frankly not sure anymore about how to handle my own reaction, post or report. I'm obviously posting, because reporting doesn't feel right. Or something - not really sure why it doesn't.

I'm surprised this thread wasn't shut down immediately after the first post.

I agree with boatin. The point of view could have been made without personal insult and inflammatory and provocative language.

If I had an American vote, it would go for ABB (Anyone But Bush). Just so you know which side of the fence I sit on. :)


Mr Mephisto

edited for rudeness

Baring some very odd occurrence, GWB will be reelected come this November. <p><br>

reelected ???.......reelected ????.......that's hilarious,,,,,only Gore is eligible to be reelected....and he isn't running !

Gotta admit, no matter which side you are supporting, we as citizens don't have much say in government any more. Special interest groups, PACs and whoever has a ton of money to throw rules those who rule.

If you are of the opinion that citizens don't have much say in government now, just
wait until you see the results of four more years of Bushco. They will finish the dismantling<br>of the Bill of Rights via the passage of Patriot Act II, which removes the
current sunset provision of the existing Patriot Act. The Supreme Court, already
compromised by Reagan and Bush '41 appointments to the point that it could issue a
decision in Dec. 2000 as distorted and constitutionally indefensible as the "Gore Exception"
was, along with the Federal appellate courts, will be rendered unrecognizable to the
intentions of the framers of our constitution, insofar, as a judiciary created to check
and balance the executive and legislative branches, after the judicial appointees of
Bushco replace the current supreme and district court judges.<p><br>
Get ready for a bankrupt federal government, sudden currency devaluations, and a
perpetual state of war. The "freedom" that Bushco wants to export to the middle east
will be unrecognizable four years from now, since it will cease to exist domestically.
What do you think the 9/11 "Reichstag Fire" was all about, if it was not intended to
set us on a course of fascism at home, and imperialism abroad ?<P>
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm">"To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief"</a>

I heard that if Kerry/Edwards wins, Edwards will retool the american judicial system for Civil trials to change the deciding factors from " preponderance of the evidence" to "Meh, it could have happened."

And Kerry will move the US capital to Paris.

That's just what I heard.

/spitball sniper rifle

Welcome back Ustwo. I too am growing more confident every day that Bush will be re-elected. The Kerry campaign appears to be nearing a meltdown. Calls from the DNC to change campaign tactics (and leaders) are but one indication.

You raise an interesting point about implications after the election. Should Kerry win I suspect things will not be significantly different in the country. Most policies will remain about the same and, unless the Dems also gain a majority in Congress there is very little chance of any significant move toward the left.

Now, should Kerry lose, the DNC will really need to examine their options. The primary for this year showed just how divided the party is. 9 candidates vying for the nomination isn't entirely surprising but the length of time it took to narrow the field seemed considerably longer than any race that I recall in the last 20 years or so. The range of beliefs within those candidates was among the most disparate I think I've ever seen.

The number of Democrats coming out for Bush in this race has also surprised me. If anyone told me 4 years ago that Ron Silver and Ed Koch would be backing a Republican for re-election i'd have thought they had been mixing their pills with a fifth of whiskey.

The Dems still have some more moderate prospects to offer and I don't count them out in the coming elections. Certainly there is no lock on this for Bush but barring some serious skill or luck on the part of the Kerry campaign and/or very bad news about the economy (And for the thousandth time, the economy is nowhere near bad. If you really think it is then you will have a stroke when we see a real economic down turn.), Iraq, or another terrorist attack I suspect we'll be seeing another four years for Bush.

Only if he first gets UN approval and he agrees to start up Chablis for oil program. :D

No, I think he would unilaterally invade Paris to install the US Capital. Keep strong a recent US tradition. Of course, such a strong showing of national will by a Democrat will have to be followed by a concession to the French People. Perhaps a Ball Gag to be worn at all times. A Consiglieri will be by his side at all times to, of course, speak for him. I suggest Rosie O'Donnell.

And here I was thinking Marcel Marceau.

Though a french tradition, Mimes are still universally hated. Rosie is the queen of nice.

Gentlemen...admitadly, this thread started out on somewhat shakey ground. (Oh, by the way, welcome back Ustwo.) However...I don't see it as a troll so much as a truly conservative view of the Democratic Party of 2004. This is a perfect opportunity to debate and dispute his view...not cry about how mean it was. The thread stays open...for now. If it is closed, it will be because it has degenerated beyond the point of a reasonable hope for salvation...not due to the original poster's views on a particular political party. Now...dispute away.

Ustwo, Ustwo, Ustwo...your confidence in Bush is...well, admirable, if nothing else. Perhaps a little dillusional, but admirable all the same. You whooped up on the Democratic Party pretty good there. Some of it, perhaps, justified and defensible. However, I would counter that with very little editing, your post could just as easily reflect the Republican Party. Special interests abound in politics, and Bush is, in my own opinion, a perfect example of pandering at its worst.

Really? I'd bet the publishers of her magazine might disagree.

How about a compromise then?

Rosie as a mime.

maybe if there was a different thread rooted in something like an actual take on the materially existing democrats, there would be something to talk about.

maybe if there was a different thread that showed some modulation in the structure of far right delerium, there would be something to talk about.

as it is, this is like being a charcter in a cartoon.
this character is vulnerable to hiccups in causality.
this character find itself in a strange loop.
night after night, the character goes to a kitchen to prepare food, and night after night it also reheats leftovers of a cafeteria meal.
this goes on for weeks and weeks: preparing and eating food and also reheating the cafeteria meal and letting it sit on a counter.
at one point, the cafeteria meal might have still resembled food--you never wanted to eat it, but at least it looked like food.
now, it is a series of strange steaming lumps.
maybe for a while, it might have been interesting to watch what was happening to these lumps, in a science project kinda way.
but by now the objects that were once a cafeteria meal do not change much reheating to reheating: they just blacken a little more, wither a little more.
they dont even really smell that much any more.
they just kind of sit there, inert at one end of the process, steaming at the other.

apparently someone involved in the cartoon thinks it is funny to continually confront the character with this situation.
but it is also obvious that even a cartoon character is not persuaded to eat by the recurrence of these tired, tasteless elements not logically related to the world around it.
even a cartoon character would not swallow this shit.

What?!? Ok...I'm gonna go get another cup of coffee, then come back and read that cafeteria thing again. 'Cause, right now...I have no idea what that means.

its about the endless recycling of the same cliches.
coffee helps.
it helped me write it.
maybe in the end it is a story about what happens if you drink too much coffee
but i meant it to be about the cliches that litter to opening post.

I'd argue, but if he is anything like the ustwo of old, it would be a waste of breath. Welcome back ustwo, do you have a child now?

Is this a problem?

If so, why aren't you also pointing out the vast amount of Republicans doing the same? ;)

Face it, both sides are easily purchased these days. Laws are often favored or created to those who give the bigger contributions.

I dunno, it's just funny that pretty much everything you stated AGAINST Democrates in your post could also be applied to Republicans... and that's a pretty scary thing.

if kerry were a strong candidate (it's my opinion that he is not as strong as past democratic candidates) then i'd give the edge to the democratic ticket. i just don't see the ABB vote being enough to take the election. kerry seems to be the alternative to the democrats i speak to, not the choice. on Sept 03 Bush looks to have more momentum than Kerry, i'll be genuinely surprised if Kerry wins in November.

No outrage exhibited in any post I've read on this thread concerning damage already
inflicted by Bushco to our constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, nor alarm about
the future damage caused by the judicial appointments that will surely come to pass if there is a second term. No mention of the tax cuts that favor the wealthiest class at
the expense of wage earners, and the impact of the new and increasing deficits.<p><br>
There is a clear choice in this election for president; continued governance by the top
one percent, vs. the (a long shot perhaps, but not hopeless, as at present) potential
for a government more representative of the middle, and somewhat responsive to the
least of us. <b>The conviction that there is not much choice between these two candidates is an uninformed one. Do you really believe that a Gore presidency would
have been indistinguishable from that of the current regime???</b>

Kerry represents the middle? I think not.

No he doesn't represent the middle. But his position is centrist compared to Bush.

So comparably, he does represent the middle.
You may disagree, but we will see who does on election day.

<i>Kerry represents the middle? I think not.</i><p><br>
Do you believe that Supreme and Appellate Court judicial appointments
that Kerry would make would not result in a judiciary signifigantly
more apt to rule in favor of workers and the environment, vs.
corporations and the agenda of the religious right ?
Do you believe that the Patriot Act restrictions and the Bushco
tax cuts would become permanent if Kerry is elected, as both
"temporary" measures surely will if Kerry is defeated ?<p><br>
Are you aware that as a returning Vet of the Viet Nam war,
and as a freshman senator in 1985, Kerry fought determined and
successful political battles against (arguably correctly, from an historical perspective)
corruption in the highest levels of republican presidential regimes;
first by organizing against and speaking out about Nixon's prosecution of
the Viet Nam war, and in 1985 via Kerry's non-partisan collaboration with
Jesse Helms in investigating and exposing the Reagan administration's
financing of an illegal war in Nicaragua, through illegal arms sales
to Iran and illicit drug trafficking, that resulted in indictments against Oliver
North and John Poindexter, ultimately blunted by classic pre-emptive presidential
pardons issued by Poppy Bush, reminiscent of unelected President Ford's hasty
pardon of Nixon ? <b>Presidential politics is now locked in a struggle between
a ROTUS (resident of the United States, vs. POTUS, reserved for legitimately
elected presidents) vs. a Senator who has made a career of exposing and
bringing down high officials in two other republican administrations who crossed
the line by failing the oath to defend, preserve, and protect the Constitution !</b>
We will get to see if he can do it a third time......just sixty days from now.....

Ustwo- I found your post to be little more than an odd rant, particularly the bit about how the Democrats are ruining the process by not being more competent and effective in stopping the Republicans. Is this just a partisan jab, or have we seen an admitted conservative concede that the Republican Party's long term vision is dangerous for America?

I'm not sure.

I think this version works a bit better (or perhaps just the same):

================

Baring some very odd occurrence, John Kerry will be elected come this November. I think even the most shrill fundamentalist reading this knows in their heart of heart this is true. This is not what I wish to talk about.

What I wish to talk about is the aftermath. How will this be explained by conservative pundits and stunned republican supporters? They will first blame Bush and his negative campaign, they will blame Bush's utter lack of competence, his constant and pathetic ‘military’ photo ops, his awkward smirk, and his catastrophic first four years. They will also blame the special interests, the swift boat vets, the liberal media, and just how stupid people are.

What they won’t look at is why they ended up with Bush-Cheney as their torch bearers. As pathetic as a Bush-Cheney ticket really is, (after all, a frat guy and a bureaucrat will not inspire many people) its not their fault that they are pathetic. They are the only kind of republicans that can win a nomination now. The republican party is no longer a party of principle but an amalgamation of right wing interest groups, radical christians, and big business money. You can’t have a strong opinion on anything without offending and alienating one of the multitude of groups.

The fringe has come to define the party, and its really a shame. I don’t think Lincoln or Eisenhower would be able to recognize what has become to the Republicans. It started with Nixon and continues to this day. It makes our county weaker, not only in the imitate since, but in the long term. We need a rational right to ask when things have gone to far left. To make sure that one philosophy doesn’t dominate, to guard the guards when called for. The intellectual dishonesty, the win at all costs, the party before country the RNC leadership has taken over the last 20 years has all but eliminated the democrats as a national political power and has relegated them to nothing but an obstruction to change. It has won them the house of representatives in 94, the white house in 2000, and the senate in 2002, but at what cost to democracy?

I read Ustwo's post twice and I didn't see a troll.

Rather, I saw his opinion being well stated.

Ustwo is back with a bang, I had forgotten how he can get my blood boiling. If the election were held today, I believe President Bush would squeek out a victory, but there is still a long way to go. Remember, traditionally, the real campaign starts after Labor Day. While Ustwo's comments are merely inflamatory opinion and speculation, it would do the Democratic party some good to reflect on the concerns he brings up. It would do the Republican party good to do the same.

I felt that Publius' comments on the essential, philisophical differences between the parties to be rather accurate, though obviously not universally so (John McCain and Colin Powell are not "Black and White" thinkers and Robert Bird rarely admits faults and never thinks he's wrong). I have heard it said that while a Republican can quickly and easily tell you why he is right, a Democrat can let you know why he most likely isn't wrong. Historically (though not true today) Americans have been more comfortable with Democratic legistatures (cognative bodies) and Republican executives (quick action). Kerry, like most Senators and Congressmen, is deliberative and thoughtful in action and word and this does not always sell well to the average American. I firmly believe that Senator Kerry will make a fine President, his challenge is getting others to believe the same thing.

The question that interests me is that any election involving an incumbant is really a refferendum on the leadership and record of that individual. Given the (regardless of what Ustwo thinks) tight race which we have, and given that two years ago, President Bush looked unstopable what does this say about the Bush Administration, the GOP platform and the philosphical stance of the conservative right and the Neo-Con movement?

In regards to Art's comments about loyalty and respect to the Office of the President, I could not agree more. I do, however, count myself as a member of the loyal opposition, and will call out my President when I think he is doing wrong. Blind loyalty is the death knell of democracy.

Oddly enough...I would agree with you for once, Art. Although, to some extent, that which you've described has been a thorn in the system for longer than you or I have been alive, I beleive that Rush Limbaugh honed it to a razor sharp edge in the 90's, under the Clinton administration. Nothing that Bill could do was right, and every evil under the sun could be directly attributed to him. For good or for bad, Limbaugh is a very effective orator. He swayed the public into beleiving that his rhetoric was gospel...a modern day Pied Piper. Millions marched to the tune that he sang. To be branded a liberal, even the very suggestion of it, was akin to a Scarlet Letter. Some perverse form of McCartyism. "Are you now, or have you ever been a (gasp) Liberal? Burn Witch!" Now, after eight years of "Clinton bashing", the Liberals are, in turn, using the same arows that were flung at them, and hurling them toward the Bush administration. Turn about is fair play? Maybe. But, in all honesty, enough is enough. Somewhere out there is the ideal man for the position of President of the United States. A true leader. A statesman...not a politician. I don't beleive that we'll ever see him though. Were I he...I wouldn't raise my head above the trenches. To much mud flying. Who wants to be subjected to that scrutiny. And besides, who doesn't have a skeleton, or two, in their closet?

Personally, if someone came out and didn't have all that much mud and was very statesmanly, I would be more than a little scared. It would be as if the man were programmed to be President, or had such good representation to cover his past, that something would be wrong. As you stated we all have some skeletons and to go further no matter who we are we all have biases and prejudices, it's man's nature to have those. A presidential candidate that doesn't ...... is hiding far too much for the office.

Kinda like Bush, no matter what is thrown at him it won't stick. The GOP want to portray him as something truly great and whenit comes down to facts, what he is doing and the laws he backs ARE NOT in anyway true conservative values (less government interference, more level playing field, basically a "Laisez Faire (hands off)" theory). They (the Patriot Act, the Marriage amendment, etc) are in every way possible government dictating more laws and rules in a person's daily life (discreetly and openly), while blanketed in the form and guise of patriotism. Also, Bush talks a good game but when it comes down to it, he truly favors the rich and elite classes.


What truly scares me the most is IF Kerry is a "Liberal" then our nation's pendulum has truly swung as far right as it ever has and farther.The scariest aspect of that is the kids I see now, a vast majority have no idea what true freedom and equality and being one's self is about. Today's kids are being raised not to question, not to think for themself and worst of all not to go against what government/religion (and yes with Bush and the right they go hand in hand) dictates is right and they show no caring about anything that may have a "liberal" label. Perhaps the kids in the 80's were the last to truly experience these positives. For we did question, we did believe in individuality and we did fight for the environment and we tried to carry the torch of our parents, who in the 60's set forth great debates and wanted change and equality. The biggest problem was Reagan had started a great abyss in education and the lawsuits that took away from individuals and made us a sterile society that promoted PCism (ALL OCCURRED UNDER THAT GREAT LEADER REAGAN and continues due to: corporations merging (or just destroying the backbone of our economy Mom and Pop shops), deregulations of the finance industries, mass media brainwashing and acceptance).

Somewhere along the line in the 80's, 90's and present we sold our souls and our nation for greed and the bottom line. No one seems to care that THOUSANDS of jobs are lost gone overseas never to come back. And the best anyone can do is offer excuses and say, "you lost your job? tough titties go find a new one."

We need to keep industry here and IF we are going to let it go (economic suicide and defensively suicidal as a nation) then we need to train our workers and children the new industries NOW and not just let people lose jobs and communities go bankrupt.

What happened to neighbors helping each other out, and businesses with community ties maintaining good community relations? THOSE ARE THE CORE VALUES OF OUR NATION'S FOUNDING. Now everyone is too scared of someone taking their stuff, so can't trust the neighbors, and businesses are too worried about bottom lines and how much the CEO and his gang can make on his next bonus check.

Plus, with Ritilin and other meds and nationalizing education and what can or cannot be taught...... it does lead to mind control and the inability to question or even think for one's self.

*coughClintoncough*

It's amazing that after four years of this people still hold onto a lie. According to the laws Bush won, and won again after the absentee (read almost fully republican voting military) ballots. If you dont like the way the laws were written attack them, but you cant change the rules in a middle of a football game why should you be able to change them during an election?

I do agree that people need to let 2000 go because those who focus or are bitter over it shall never move forward and shall never win another election.

HOWEVER, you are very factually WRONG about Clinton. His personal ratings declined BUT his job approval ratings were extremely high. In the '96 election the GOP ran Dole because they knew noone would beat Clinton. His ratings were in the 60's at the time. Do a search EVERY site I went to showed that his ratings EVEN during the 98 scandal were in the 60's.

So, no you may not say Clinton was re-elected with lower than 50% approval ratings.... that's a fallacy and not FACT.

Just an example and it portrays Clinto in a negative light (to appease and so people can't say "liberal biased writings can't count as proof".

=-=======

CLINTON'S JOB-APPROVAL RATING HIGH

AP
9/14 Will Lester


Clinton's Job-Approval Rating High

By WILL LESTER Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton's lofty job approval ratings seem far removed from the growing calls for his resignation and the talk in Congress of impeachment.

Indeed, political analysts say they've never seen anything quite like the president's steady run of ratings over 60 percent during eight months of intense controversy over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

Why is this happening?

Some would argue: ``It's the economy, stupid'' -- the oft-quoted slogan from the war room in Clinton's first presidential campaign.

``We could talk all day and night about factors that might change his job approval 2 or 3 percent,'' said political scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. ``The economy is the single most important ingredient to his Teflon.''

``The country has prospered under him,'' said Clinton political adviser James Carville, field general from that 1992 war room. ``In democracies, historically, people have blamed their leaders when things go bad and rewarded their leaders when things have gone well.''

The stock market has struggled lately amid international financial problems, but unemployment and inflation rates are the best they've been in a generation and falling interest rates have spurred a boom in housing sales.

On Monday, the president addressed growing international financial troubles and called on the world's wealthy nations to work together on economic issues.

While the president's personal ratings on trust and ethics have declined recently and some people say they want him censured, public approval of his job performance is helping him for now.

The president struggled in the polls during his first two years and Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. During the government shutdown in late 1995, Clinton boosted his approval numbers by successfully blaming Republicans for the gridlock.

``His survival in the presidency and his high popularity are directly attributable to the overreaching of Republicans in the Congress,'' said Alan Brinkley, a history professor at Columbia University. ``Once he had an unpopular enemy against whom he could compare himself, it gave him enormous leverage for improving his image.''

The president's job approval numbers flourished through 1996 and 1997. When news of the Starr investigation of Clinton's relationship with Ms. Lewinsky broke in January, his job approval rating actually spiked to 71 percent in a Pew Research Center poll. It has been in the 60s ever since.

Since the president admitted in August that he had a sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, some newspapers, TV pundits and members of Congress have called for his resignation or impeachment. But the public has not caught impeachment fever.

``This brings him down to the level of the guy next door. Sure the guy has faults,'' said Doris Graber, a political communications expert at the University of Illinois at Chicago. ``But people can identify with lying about this sort of thing, even in their teen years, lying about dating.''

The media's sense of outrage is higher than the public's, Bill Kovach, curator of the Nieman Foundation suggested, because individual journalists feel a sense of betrayal.

``In spite of everything that people in Washington, D.C., may believe, the sun does not rise and set on Washington,'' Kovach said. ``For most people, Washington and the work of the federal government are a much smaller part of their lives than people tend to believe.''

Clinton's Republican predecessors saw their job approval ratings drop dramatically.

President Reagan lost 20 points in a month and a half in late 1986 when the Iran-Contra affair became public. And President Bush, whose job approval ratings were near 90 percent in early 1991 after the Persian Gulf War, saw them drop to about about 30 percent by the summer of 1992 as the economy sagged.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz said Monday that job approval is merely ``a measure of the country's sense of well-being.'' He contended that the president's personal poll numbers are a far more important measure of how people view him.

Almost six out of 10 people in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken Sunday had a negative view of Clinton.


=====

Link:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a660454.htm

I don't think enough attention has been given to this post.

This is a very scary reality... I mean, after all, look at the amount of people blindly following along listening to and agreeing with whatever the President says.

[edit]
70 years after the fact, people are ONCE AGAIN getting suckered into a bad situation because the leaders play on other's fears with the "Terrorism" bullshit.

There have been a lot of interesting responses and I hope to get to many of them in the near future. I have semi-unexpected dinner guests tonight so I have to do some things right now which means I can't explore some of the more philosophical aspects of the replies. There is one I just couldn't pass up and the response is rather quick, so if you will forgive me I will respond only to him right now.


U.S. Economy Creates 144,000 New Jobs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131353,00.html

Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead
TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader

http://www.time.com/time/press_relea...692562,00.html


You might want to rethink

Anyone who was around in 2000 knows that its the electoral votes, not the popular vote that count.

<b>SEAVER</b>
<i>It's amazing that after four years of this people still hold onto a lie. According to the laws Bush won, and won again after the absentee (read almost fully republican voting military) ballots. If you dont like the way the laws were written attack them, but you cant change the rules in a middle of a football game why should you be able to change them during an election?</i>

I cannot imagine living without questioning and holding those in authority accountable.
How do you do it ? You mentioned the "law" and the "rules". You really believe that any of the Bush bros. or Poppy have any respect for the law or are restrained by it ?
Even after four years....it still smells....similar to the way the recently discredited 2004
Florida "felon voter purge list" smells (whoops, after CNN sued to get the
courts to open the secret purge list for public scrutiny, it was discovered
that 2000+ names on the list were of voters who had applied for and received
clemency from Gov. Jeb Bush, and.....after Jeb and his Secretary of State
both swore that the list intended to prevent up to 48,000 people from voting,
was rechecked to insure accuracy, but had to be kept secret to "protect privacy" CNN sucessfully persuaded a state court judge to order disclosure
it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list
HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, due to a "database error"), and
the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only
seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete
their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and
now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice,
required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at
the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order
to restore their right to vote. Bush "won Florida" by 537 votes.......
<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml">
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm">
http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/8950005.htm">
"Berg said (Jeb) Bush and the clemency board are empowered to repeal the rule and automatically restore voting rights to felons, which former Gov. Reubin Askew and the Cabinet did for a group in 1975."</a>
<b>The Reagan/Bush '41 Supreme Court 5 were certainly acting like the "activist
judges" that Repubs constantly disavow when they invented the unprecedented
"Gore Exception" to "install" the current ROTUS in the White House....have you
read it???? Add the machinations of Jeb and his current and previous Secretary
of State, and their now discredited felon purge lists, and they have as much
credibility and legitmacy as Janet Jackson's "wardrobe accident". Wake up !!!
A coup took place in Dec., 2000, and Jeb was brazen (and stupid) enough to try
to pull the same shitty tactic in 2004, relying on excuses to keep the new list secret. </b>

BTW.....as is obvious, I'm new here and I notice that many post messages
with no links to reference or validate their claims or opinions. Is neglecting
to use the most signifigant feature that the internet offers; a "web of links"
to strengthen your point of view, acceptable to most members who post on
a political forum ? I tend to skip over unreferenced posts. They're too easy
to create and don't offer as much information.

Host, (WELCOME TO TILTED, It truly is a great forum)

While the argument is great for Gore (and I do believe Gore was elected and I think Fla. had too many problems to make it a "sure" thing either way in '00).

It is 4 years later and a new election. People HAVE to move on. If you keep looking at that election, you will never move forward and eventually be passed by.

I am truly no fan of W. and I would love for him to lose the election (for the right reasons, ABB is not a good enough reason), but I also know just as Clinton's problems divided the nation and the GOP wanted that, we need to stop being divisive and allow a President 4 years of getting through his platform. NO MATTER WHO WINS!!!! The divisiveness is killing this country because nothing can get done.

I look at it like this. I am personally very scared of what will happen if Bush gets another 4 years, however, if it gets worse during his four years, I can almost guarantee in 2 the Dems will win the Congress and then in 4 Bush and the GOP will be gone. (Unless of course my paranoia is true and Bush suspends elections, but I try not to listen to that voice as it also said 01/01/00 was going to be doomsday.)

So let '00 go, campaign and get out your desire for Kerry or whoever this year and move forward. We have enough hatred and anger from people in this country, it is time we truly stop the hate and moved forward working together bipartisanly to help grow America. Turn off the Limbaughs, Becks, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Moores, Matthews, whoever and say "THIS IS MY COUNTRY AND I REFUSE THE HATE, BOTH PARTIES SHOULD WANT TO WORK TO BETTER AMERICA."

It maybe a fallacy and a fantasy, but I believe America is by and large Centrist and is tired of the fighting and finger pointing and just wants results. The problem is what is it going to take to get our leaders to see that? Cause they sure as hell don't seem to now.

Pan, I don't agree that divisiveness is killing this nation. Maybe figureheads capitalizing on it is hampering other issues from being discussed and addressed, but not to the extent that things that would otherwise be done aren't (hmm, I mean: even without the dissent, certain things wouldn't be done; maybe a new reason would have to be used as an excuse).

This divisiveness may be just what the doctor ordered so citizens can once again find their moorings that seem to have been lost in the upheaval of trust and legitimacy in government and institutions since the 60's. There were a lot of global and domestic movements in that era that seem to have detached people from what they knew to be true (regardless of whether it was).

I may not like what comes out of this process, but I think it's necessary for the progression of our civic discourse and national compass--not that I even desire that we have one, but I realize most of the citizens do.

Thank you, PAN.
I will Move On when Jeb Bush does. He showa no contrition for his Y2K
felon purge list; quite the opposite, considering what he was caught doing
when his 2004 purge list unexpectedly became public, negating the assurances
of fairness and accurcy Jeb and Glenda purported before their new criminal
manipulation was exposed by our press, who thankfully did not choose to
move on. Do you think that founding fathers, like Jefferson, who designed our
system of checks and balances, would have "moved on" ???

Jefferson said:
<i>
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."
</i>
<b>Do the sheeple in this country really think that Jefferson would react to the majority of the posts written on this thread any differently than I am if,
in light of what he wrote above, he encountered this of the "sitting"
president ? Is this man facing the people "to set them right as to facts" ? I think not:</b><br>
<a href="http://www.theweekbehind.com/articles/liars.html">
(As of April 2, 2004.....)
The net-net of Bush's first three years in office is one of the most closed off -- but "on message" -- administrations in history. So far, Bush has held only 11 press conferences -- compared with 77 by his father in the first three years of his administation, according to Frank Rich in The New York Times. Even Richard Nixon, deemed one of the most secretive presidents of our time, held 23 over the same period.</a>

Do you realize that you do not even know who Bush is? All you see is a carefully scripted package when you view the man on TV. With so few press
conferences, and some of those restricted to answering pre-submitted
questions, we have no real measure of this man, compared to the way other
presidents have exposed themselves to situations where they answered
press questions spontaneously, on numerous occasions. Consider how poorly
Bush has performed, even with so few incidences where he wasn't scripted,
pathetic !

The above Jefferson quote was in the same paragraph as his more famous
words, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

George bush is just like every other american. ;)

I’m sorry you do not like my point of view. This is my honest feeling about the current democratic ticket. Kerry is a gigolo and Edwards is a true shyster, their histories are disgusting, especially Edwards. If I was in a position to save Edwards life somehow I would hesitate, the man has purposefully destroyed many good Doctors lives. I would most likely save him due to my moral upbringing, but I would not feel good about it in the least. If you do not know what I’m talking about please do a little research as it has been done to death on these boards. The Democrats have been wrong and wrong again, and it has cost them most of their power in this country, and in the long run I think this is a bad thing.

I’m sorry you don’t agree with me either, but there is no need for you to be vulgar. Please grow up.

You must not have listened to the whole speech. He spoke for a long time about the domestic agenda. The problem is that the economy is not bad, and has become one of those myths of the left. The ‘jobless’ recovery and all that, when anyone who knows how recoveries go, the economy starts to improve BEFORE you begin to hire. Well now the hiring has been going on for the last year and the latest report was 144k new jobs. I’m sorry to be the one to have to inform you of this. You were correct in one thing, I do have huge balls.

I don't think so, not to the extent the democrats are basically enslaved by theirs. The Republicans DO have special interest groups, but how the Republicans deal with them and WHY they deal with them are quite different. Lets take the NRA. Obviously this would be a good 'special interest group' to talk about, it’s the bugaboo if the left, and they almost always support Republican candidates. But while this group gives their support and the Republicans are for the most part anti-gun control, the reason Republicans are anti-gun control has nothing to do with the NRA. The NRA compliments the Republicans, but if the NRA were to go away the Republicans would still be anti-gun control. Now lets look a trial lawyers. Trial lawyers give millions of dollars to the democratic party every year, they give almost nothing to Republicans (last I saw was 2million to dems, 18k to reps). If you know anything about the problems in health care you know about the states where doctors are literally fleeing the states due to the insane, frivolous lawsuits which make practicing impossible. I live in such a state. This is a bad thing, its been talked to death for the last decade but all attempts to reform this get shot down, by one political party. Guess which one it is? Now lets pretend that the trial lawyers stop giving money to the dems, do you think the democrats will still obstruct ANY laws which might get in the way of the law suit gravy train? John Edwards made millions and millions of dollars suing doctors for birth defects which has been scenically proven they can not cause. I don’t see anything changing if he gets elected do you? The same goes for the teachers union. You may not agree with the Republican position on the issues, and that’s fine BUT they are at least honest about their position and why they hold it.

Yes it would be a waste of typing for you, but I keep hoping you will see the light. Child is due Nov 21.


So you are saying President Bush doesn’t have strong opinions and is a product of focus groups? I think much of the lefts cries of republicans being somehow bought off by big oil etc is due more to their guilty conscious in having been bought themselves. I see very little proof in the republicans being bought off but I only have to look to the lawyers to see the democrats being bought like cattle.

I think the only people who were worried about the unstoppable neo-con movement were people on the left who were shocked and awed by the 2002 senate elections. Conservatism is not an 'easy' philosophy and as such it takes a long time to educate people.

I always heard that huge balls were a deficit, because they hid the view.

Well it looks like it has already begun....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/po...rint&position=

There is a lot more in the ariticle and it sounds a lot like what I said would happen ;)

And it still continues.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/op...rint&position=

They will blame the man but not they who nominated the man. Just watch.

bush will remain president. yeah, the actions gonna break out right after. the GOP have effectively wiped out all methods of actually proving anyone wins. if gwb actually did win by a majority vote he has no means of proving it to you or me. i think a lotta people are gonna have some serious doubt. like half of the country. i see some serious unrest in the near future. rodney king was childs play. wait till the 2004 king george riots. off with his head.

After the election, the president of America will be a white, conservative, capitalist.

Personally, I dont believe Bush will win, in fact I dont believe Bush CAN win...but while I favour Kerry, I have no illusions that everything he stands for and everything he will defend is the opposite of the interests of the radical working class.

MOVED TO NEW THREAD

Would a black, conservative, capitalist be ok?

Why the racism?

you'll have to excuse him, he didn't realize larry elders was on novembers ballot. :D

edit: forgot to add the smiley face!

I was thinking Walter Williams, but it doesn't matter.

SF thinks anyone who is not a radical is conservative and thats bad.
SF thinks capitalism is bad.
SF thinks white is bad?

If President Bush is the winner in the election, will you democrats finally STFU about the bogus "Stole the Election" thing. God, that's getting old and tattered.

No, they won't.

They won't blame themselves either, but thats another issue :)

what i find interesting about this thread is, for example, the wholly unsupported assumption--no, the certainty--that bush will win re-election--and the attempts to rhetorically shore up this assumption with nonsequitors like this:

which is the kind of thing that apprently has some weight in conservativeland, but nowhere else.
the arbitrary appeal to some imaginary inward sense, for example, would be funny were it not an index of the alternate media universe within which it seems that the right operates. the entirely arbitrary characterization of the democrats as a left party--this too would be funny if it were not obvious that there are people who actually believe it in a way that is not falsifiable--which leads me to wonder if questions of fact can be posed to the inhabitants of conservativeland in this form, or whether what matters is holding together a view of the world by holding together a rhetoric.

it seems to me that conservativeland--this curious mediaspace, this wraparound world--is more self-reiforcing than the world fashioned by the most sectarian of the old trotskyist groups--"research" to reinforce lines that float in this space is carried out almost exclusively with reference to conservative "sources"--which are used to situate material assimilated from other spaces and to subordinate that material--it seems that this whole system in the end relies on a faith-based committment to certain premises and that the system functions to cut those premises off from unpleasant contact with the world that other people know about.

of course, this whole system legitimates itself by claiming that it operates as a counter to another, that of "the left" which seems to be little more than the mirror image of the right itself, its necessary opposite, rather than anything in that exists empirically. this negative image has to be tightly ordered because that of the right is; this negative image has to be a wholly self-reinforcing space because that of the right is.

it is frankly alarming.
one consequence of this is that debate across positions really difficult--conservativeland provides its inhabitants a framework that legitimates the refusal to enagage. arguments rarely if ever reach anything meaningful--instead you get endless attempts to substitute catch phrases. which in part explains how people like ustwo, who started this thread, works when he intervenes in threads that do not operate along the assumptions that shape his world.

i see the whole of conservativeland as delusional, purporting to be rooted in a descriptive discourse that is in fact entirely normative, incapable of providing a descriptive dimension for itself. what is frightening is that there is a population out there, and a sizable one, that prefers this internally harmonized, self-enclosed world to anything approaching contact with the complexity of the social.

i wonder if anyone who occupies this space can step outside of it long enough to explain why it has this appeal.

caveat to the above: i am not saying that everyone who is politically conservative is so in the same way--i am referring specifically to the people whose politics lean on the right media world, the parameters of which are quite obvious, for the elaboration and maintenance of thier positions. the above is mostly directed toward/against that media world. i simply take ustwo as a fine example of someone floating in that space. but it could just as easily have been another person.

Arise thread! Arise from the grave!

Now that it is over and Kerry has lost, I think more of what I posted months ago will come to pass.

We now have an all right America in terms of power. The senate is still wishy washy due to the 60 vote rule, but stronger for the right. The democrat minority leader has been voted out of office there. The house likewise has been shifted more to the Republicans.

But will any democrat blame themselves for nominating Kerry?

Actually...not being a Dem, I likely have little to add here, But.

I see no Blame needed, there are always winners, and losers in a competition.
Both sides gave it a serious try, and one was slightly more successful. I will hope that this time around, Your thread provokes less......friction.

I will of course....wait and see.

What about evil orthodontists..huh? ;)

We have a republican controlled Senate, House, AND Presidency, which means that any sort of system of checks and balances is gone. Furthermore, this administration doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in 2008, so it's now no-holds-barred, don't-care-what-you-think-of-me politics from GWB from now on. There's nothing anyone can do to stop him napalming more adult and children civilians in Iraq or other places, or dropping depleted uranium bombs that ensure Iraqi and American military deformed fetuses and children for years to come, putting innocent until proven guilty American citizens in prison without charges, visits, legal counsel or rights, or etc., etc. Nothing. Unless, that is, he gets a blowjob. THEN he will have crossed the line, incurred the moral outrage of Conservative America, and the impeachment process will begin.

And some wonder why the Democrats lost.

djtestudo, I'm not a Democrat. Believe it or not, some of us believe that a two-party monopoly on politics is just as bad as the USSR's old one-party monopoly on politics. This election was between Bush and Bush Lite, in my view. It really doesn't matter to me which member of the Skull and Bones won the election. This country is screwed.

I'm embarrassed to respond to this because it would be evidence that I actually do lurk here, occasionally, but I must ask if you subscribe to the philosophy of "my country, right or wrong..." Correct me if I'm mistaken but I had always thought that the USA was a country built on public disagreement, something embraced by the first amendment.

I think a lot of disagreements about what constitutes patriotism comes from different ideas on what patriotism is. You can think of patriotism as your obedience to your country (an idea that I would have thought would be repugnant to US citizens but what do I know) or you can think of it as your love for your country. This follows closely with the idea of the role of the President. You can think of him as the leader of the country or you can think of him as its representative. Again and of course, this leads to a difference of opinion of what it means to be a patiot and, thus, the political divide in the USA.

To some, they care enough about their country to publically voice their grievances, even if they are in the minority (something harder to do than most people appreciate, I think) and this love for their country is, to them, patriotism and not necessarily partisanship (to bring this discussion back to a response to ARTelevision).

Again, it's simply a difference of opinion and I fear that people really don't see this. I can't stand the mindless conflicts that happen in this forum, which is why none of you have seen me in a long time, here, and you're likely never to hear from me, again. Please come talk to me about anything other than politics on any of the other wonderful forums here, on TFP...

The INS inspector general report of September 2001 established that Al Gore hijacked the INS in order to create literally thousands of new citizens in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. His trashing of background checks and ignoring of criminal records are what made the election close in Florida.

But of course, Bush stole the election and it's the Supreme Court's fault.